Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 2:27 pm Like everything else, this was the most important issue with the “liberal” media, until the Government did what they wanted. See also 2 child benefit cap, recognising Palestine, pub rates…They can now kick the government over changes to the Hillsborough law.
For unlucky politicians like Starmer, nothing he ever does is good enough. Rather like Ted Heath, who after he negotiated EEC membership must have anticipated a relaxed walkabout among friendly crowds, only to get egged. By someone protesting about the redevelopment of Covent Garden.
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 8:06 pm Let me guess. "watered down to the point of uselessness"There's a summing here.
The families of victims of the Manchester Arena bombing say they cannot support the current form of a new law being designed to stop cover-ups.
Campaigners met Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Wednesday in Parliament to press their case that the Hillsborough Law should apply to individual employees of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and leave no public authority exempt.
Last week, families bereaved by the arena attack in 2017 wrote to him saying MI5 had failed them and argued that the proposed law must apply fully to security services.
But following their meeting, they said the PM had failed to address their concerns.
A public inquiry found MI5 had not given an "accurate picture" of the key intelligence it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the arena attack, which killed 22 people and injured hundreds.
The Hillsborough Law Now campaign has warned that the draft legislation in its current form could allow intelligence chiefs "to hide serious failures behind a vague claim of national security".
The government has tabled amendments to the draft law, formally known as the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, that would place the same "duty of candour" on security service personnel as other public servants.
But MI5, MI6 and GCHQ chiefs would have the power to "review and determine whether or how" to provide any information supplied by agents to inquiries or investigations, under the amendments.
Government sources said while they had the deepest respect for the families, they had gone as far as they could without compromising national security and that the security services would be subjected to unprecedented scrutiny.
mattomac wrote: ↑Sat Jan 17, 2026 8:02 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_McKee_(politician)He seems a decent sort and certainly a rising star.
This lad seems to be doing some decent comms on his own instagram and tik took and it’s been picked up by the party.
One to watch.
Oboogie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 11:26 pm National Security absolutely needs to be the priority.And needs to be enshrined in written law.
Tech companies’ access to UK ministers dwarfs that of child safety groupsI assume the work for this was done before the Government/regulator got X to back down It feels a bit flat as a revelation now. And anyway, number of meetings is a highly imperfect criterion for judging government seriousness. Did they need any meetings at all to tell them some tech is over the line? You might though need several to negotiate action while protecting tech investment.
- By satnav